Las Vegas, NV, June 11, 2007–According to National Animal Interests Alliance press release (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-05-2007/0004601650&EDATE=)
Assembly Bill 1634 “… strips pet owners of their traditional rights and, in the process, sharply reduces both the quantity and quality of purpose-bred dogs and cats –including those bred for assistance to the disabled, and for search & rescue operations. AB 1634 is backed by the extremist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and sponsored by Assembly Member Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys). If it passes, most California pet owners will have to sterilize their pets.”

“Even people who don’t own animals should realize that every time a new law is passed, the government powers and bureaucracy are growing and our personal freedoms shrinking,” says Zuzana Kukol, a NevadaÂ big catÂ trainer and co-founder of “Responsible Exotic Animal Ownership”, www.REXANO.org, a new free web resource designed to give tools and statistics based research material to private owners of exotics to fight unfair legislation. “Exotic, domestic and farm animal owners share the same enemy, AR groups and uninformed legislators, who areÂ sentencing our animals to extinction thru exotic bans and mandatory spay and neuter bills.â€

“Animals are personal property; and we oppose legislation that restricts the private ownership or use of animals, or that inhibits free trade of any animal provided it meets Ohio Department of Agriculture testing and import requirements,” adds Polly Britton, Secretary of the Ohio Association of Animal Owners, www.oaao.us.

One of AR activists’ main objectives is to end captive keeping of wild and exotic animals.

â€œMost of the wild habitat is disappearing and the only chance to save many animals such as tigers from extinction is captive breeding with the private sector having the majority of available habitatâ€ says Scott Shoemaker, REXANO co-founder.

â€œIf the animal rights activists truly care about animals, then why are they trying to regulate and ban them to extinction?â€ asks Kukol. â€What crime did the animals commit to be sentenced to death?â€

“Control the land and the animals, then you control the people.” states Kim Bloomer a natural pet care educator, lecturer and host of the online radio show Animal Talk Naturally www.AnimalTalkNaturally.com.

“There is a hidden agenda with regard to all of these laws and it has nothing to do with public safety or concerns for good animal care. Rather, it is about eroding or removing American freedoms, the right to own as many animals as we can provide for.”

REXANO is free web resource designed to give much needed tools and statistics based research material to private owners of exotic and wild animals to fight unfair legislation in the USA. Current focus of www.REXANO.org is to reverse the trend in over regulation, with the desire that in the near future to work on repealing excessive regulations and bans on private ownership of exotics.

That is nonsense! It is the irresponsible breeding of animals for sale and failure to have pets spayed and neutered that is responsible for the millions of animals who are put to sleep every year. It is the breeders and irresponsible pet owners who are causing the deaths of the animals, not the groups who are trying to stop the breeding. Stopping that irresponsibility is not going to cause extinction…it will only stop the unnecessary death of millions of unwanted animals.

The only hidden agenda here is the usual one of those people who profit from the breeding and use and abuse of animals. The bottom line is simply that animal-rights activists threaten the profit margins of agribusiness, meat and dairy, big pharma, circuses, fur traders, exotic animal breeders, and puppy mills. When you follow the money and the politics, it is clear which side has the hidden agenda and the profit-driven motivation to distort the truth. And it is not the animal-rights advocates!

The legendary TV host Bob Barker just retired after 35 years as the host of the Price Is Right game show, where his signature sign-off was “Help control the pet population. Have your pets spayed or neutered”. His foundation DJ&T, contributes to “spay and neuter” shelters nationwide. He also devotes large sums of money to endowments to support the study of animal rights law with millions going to top law schools like Harvard, Columbia, Georgetown, Duke, Northwestern, UCLA and Stanford. Barker –who no one would call “naive” or “uninformed” says that the major part of his multi-million-dollar estate will go to animal advocacy. Someday, thanks to these animal advocacy groups and people like Barker animals will no longer be considered just personal property like a sofa or toaster to be treated in any way their owners see fit.

Murphy's Mum said,

in June 11th, 2007 at 8:21 pm

AB 1634 is a bad bill and it needs to be defeated. Good American citizens should know this is wack-o animal rights legislation when they see Bob Barker’s name near it. How sad that California Assemblypersons were swayed by celebrities and voted YES on this right’s stripping bill that will end all domestic animal ownership as we know it. We can only hope that the California Senators will listen to the people of California and kill this bill. The Supporters of this bill easily point the finger at “breeder’s greed” but have yet to answer one burning question: If there are so many animals dying in shelters each day that the mandatory castration of 16 week old puppies and kittens is required to end it, then why do so many shelters bring animals in from Mexico and other states to meet their adoption demands???

ML said,

in June 11th, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Last time I checked none of my animals raised money for their needs, none of them are capable of making informed decisions nor accepting consequences for their actions. Plain and simple domestic animals need humans, thus they are property. Property that needs regular maintenance (vet visits, food, water, clean place to live, etc). Humans on the other hand can make decisions, accept responsibility, make a living, etc. AR is trying to give the illusion pets should be treated like humans, but they are not. Humans (well most of them) would not walk into another home an piss on the furniture however animals do because they are animals. I love my animals but I know they have a specific place in life and that is not equal to humans.
This bill is wrong in every way but mainly it strips people of their right to choose, own property and live happily. If you properly care for your animal you do not make money off of a litter of kittens or puppies. Now puppymill do and this bill 100% encourages puppymill operations to move into California. Besides if we have too many pets in California why are they coming in from other states or countries?

Sacramento Mom said,

in June 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pm

HSUS and PeTA support AB1634, and *their* supporters are paying for lobbyists, creating YouTube videos, and promoting their anti-pet agenda on television and radio all over California. The oft-stated, well-known (to anyone who bothers to research before sending their hard-earned dollars) true agenda of these groups is ultimately the elimination of all pet ownership, all animal-based agriculture, all non-vegan diets and lifestyles. Vegetarianism isn’t even good enough for these two monster fund raising machines. Why, pray tell, do you think they’re pushing the Pet Extinction Bill anyway?

HSUS’s suggestion to Arizona shelters when disease broke out: kill them all. Don’t try to save any. Destroy ’em and dump the bodies. HSUS’s suggestion on its’ website for no-kill shelters: turn KILL shelter ASAP. HSUS demand to FEMA in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: we WILL take care of the pets, because we’re the ‘pet experts.’ Where did they send all those rescued Katrina cats and dogs? The next state over? NO! They went primarily to (drum roll, please)… CALIFORNIA!

The newest animal rights tactic to remove animals from our ownership, use, and husbandry is the emotional plea that pets are more than mere property. Mere property? The right to own property is among the most precious of rights. Property is of great value. The old, stale “toaster, sofa” examples are ill concieved, and clearly designed to denigrate property ownership. Why not choose to compare our pets with homes, land, diamonds, water rights, mineral rights? To the person who owns only a toaster, that toaster is precious. If our property is meaningless why don’t these emotional nay sayers strip themselves of all their worldly goods, clothing, automobiles, and appurtanances, and go naked into the wilderness?

Animals are among the most ancient, and traditional proprty of humankind. We must not be swayed by lies, and unbased emotionalism into giving over our property rights in our animals. As we love them we must cling tenatiously to our ownership, and use rights in order that we continue to practice the ancient, and honorable profession of animal husbandry.
We have over thirty thousand years of animal ownership and use, coupled with sound animal husbandry practices to give us legal standing for animal ownership.

California’s AB1634 establishes that the state has proprietary ownership of privately held animals. It removes the ownership rights from the titled owner. The state mandate of invasive surgical procedures is unprecedented. It establishes that the titled owner has no say over his/her animals and is a taking by the state of the titled owner’s right to make medical decisions concerning his/her pets. This is a taking without compensation. Basically AB1634 removes ownership rights from the owner making the titled owner nothing more than a guardian. A guardian is a intermediary for the state. The guardian has no rights, but all of the responsibility, and cost liability.

AB1634 will effectively do away with the small family breeder in favor of the huge USDA licensed facilities by mandating a business license for breeders. In order to maintain a business license, the business must show a profit. Zoning, too will play a role in whether or not a small breeder will be able to obtain a business license. Judie Mancuso, and Ed Boks the authors of AB1634 knew what the consequenses of AB1634 would be, the collapse of the pet animal industry in California. This has been orchestrated since the hurricanes Katrina, and Rita displaced so many animals from the gulf coast states. Those animals have been used by the animal rights organizations to intake, and euthanasia figures all over the country. Those inflated figures have been used to introduce the legislation that is aimed at removing our animal ownership, and use rights.

The animal rights movement does not love animals. Love does not seek annihilation.

Kat said,

in June 12th, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Correction Wordster…Bob Barker is a perfect example of the naivete of celebrities supporting this bill. By donating to animal rights groups he’s contributing to their goal of pet elimination. Anyone who leaves millions to any animal rightist group instead of helping the hungry or the poor is certainly not someone to be admired. Thats deplorable on his part though its a great example of how animal rightists devalue human life.

ardeth said,

in June 12th, 2007 at 9:04 pm

Oh, boo, Rexano. The bill is not anti-pet, it’s anti-cruelty to pets, and I salute California for introducing it. Have you ever been inside an animal shelter clinic or city pound, where thousands of homeless dogs and cats have to be euthanized every year because THERE ARE TOO MANY DOGS AND CATS BEING BORN AND NOT ENOUGH HOMES AND TOO MANY IRRESPONSIBLE, IGNORANT HUMANS WHO DON’T SPAY AND NEUTER THEIR PETS? I have, and I’ll never forget it. I’m an animal rights advocate and I have four dogs and five cats (all rescued, spayed and neutered, by the way). How can you accuse someone like me of being anti-pet? Get real! Stop whining. And god bless Bob Barker. I wish we had more animal lovers like him.

maria said,

in June 13th, 2007 at 2:32 am

First of all, the number of animals being euthanized in California shelters has dropped steadily for more than two decades despite the continuous population increase in families with pets. Important to note, the numbers continue to drop faster in shelters that are in jurisdictions that do not have mandatory spay/neuter.
The majority of animals euthanized (approximately 60-70 percent in most shelters) are unowned or unwanted, stray and feral cats. This bill will not impact this population in any way.
Passing a bill like this will only punish reputable hobby breeders, most of which rarely make a profit on a litter, once all their expenses are considered, who do it for the love of their breed, and improving thier breed. Most good breeders I know have contracts with strict spay/neuter clauses for those sold as “pet quality”, and will take back any animal they breed if for ANY reason the buyer is unable to keep it. This bill will open the flood gates for poorly bred, out of state puppymills to fill the demand for pets here in California. It will encourage sickly litters to be smuggled over the boarder to be sold out of the back of pick up trucks. These will be the animals that will fill the shelters as their new owners can’t deal with the health and temperament problems of these poorly bred animals. Lets not encourage this by forcing out responsible breeders.
Then there is the issue of spay/neuter at such a young age. Growth-related problems, urinary incontinence, and behavioral problems have all been reported in higher numbers in animals neutered at such an early age.
Finally, in principle, I have always been funamentally against government incursion into our private lives and businesses. This is an unnecessary bill, and like gun control legislation, will have no affect on the irresponsible people it should be targeting, only afffecting the law abiding reputable breeders. Reducing the number of pet animals born in California will not reduce the demand for puppies and kittens. This reduction, particularly of well bred and socialized animals, will leave the people of California vulnerable to puppy millers from California and other states, unregulated internet sales, sellers of animals smuggled across the border and unscrupulous brokers of animals imported from Eastern Europe and Latin America. If these animals are poor representatives of their breeds, poorly socialized or unhealthy-and they usually are; many will end up in the shelter. Isn’t it better to buy animals from people you can question face to face, premises you can inspect, and breeding stock you can see?

Cynthia said,

in June 19th, 2007 at 5:56 am

AB 1634

One problem is, people hear one thing about a bill and they think it’s good without researching it further. Before promoting any bill please look at all the facts and viewpoints, even if it’s something you don’t want to hear, This bill has serious flaws and needs to be reworked.

Having a pet spayed or neutered before puberty is dangerous! I would NEVER consider having it done at 6 MONTHS!

The sex hormones are needed for achieving peak bone density, healthy growth and development. Puppies that are sterilized before they are physically mature and their growth plates have closed can be identified by their longer limbs, a lighter bone structure, narrow chests and narrow skulls . Some may also be more prone to suffer CCL rupture, in addition to the risks listed above.

Those of us with responsibility for the health of canine athletes need to continually read and evaluate new scientific studies to ensure that we are taking the most appropriate care of our performance dogs. This article provides evidence through a number of recent studies to suggest that veterinarians and owners working with canine athletes should revisit the standard protocol in which all dogs that are not intended for breeding are spayed and neutered at or before 6 months of age.

Orthopedic Considerations
A study by Salmeri et al in 1991 found that bitches spayed at 7 weeks grew significantly taller than those spayed at 7 months, who were taller than those not spayed (or presumably spayed after the growth plates had closed).(1) A study of 1444 Golden Retrievers performed in 1998 and 1999 also found bitches and dogs spayed and neutered at less than a year of age were significantly taller than those spayed or neutered at more than a year of age.(2) The sex hormones, by communicating with a number of other growth-related hormones, promote the closure of the growth plates at puberty (3), so the bones of dogs or bitches neutered or spayed before puberty continue to grow. Dogs that have been spayed or neutered well before puberty can frequently be identified by their longer limbs, lighter bone structure, narrow chests and narrow skulls. This abnormal growth frequently results in significant alterations in body proportions and particularly the lengths (and therefore weights) of certain bones relative to others. For example, if the femur has achieved its genetically determined normal length at 8 months when a dog gets spayed or neutered, but the tibia, which normally stops growing at 12 to 14 months of age continues to grow, then an abnormal angle may develop at the stifle. In addition, with the extra growth, the lower leg below the stifle likely becomes heavier (because it is longer), and may cause increased stresses on the cranial cruciate ligament. In addition, sex hormones are critical for achieving peak bone density.(4) These structural and physiological alterations may be the reason why at least one recent study showed that spayed and neutered dogs had a higher incidence of CCL rupture.(5) Another recent study showed that dogs spayed or neutered before 5 1/2 months had a significantly higher incidence of hip dysplasia than those spayed or neutered after 5 1/2 months of age, although it should be noted that in this study there were no standard criteria for the diagnosis of hip dysplasia.(6) Nonetheless, breeders of purebred dogs should be cognizant of these studies and should consider whether or not pups they bred were spayed or neutered when considering breeding decisions.

Cancer Considerations
A retrospective study of cardiac tumors in dogs showed that there was a 5 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma, one of the three most common cancers in dogs, in spayed bitches than intact bitches and a 2.4 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma in neutered dogs as compared to intact males.(7) A study of 3218 dogs demonstrated that dogs that were neutered before a year of age had a significantly increased chance of developing bone cancer.(8) A separate study showed that neutered dogs had a two-fold higher risk of developing bone cancer.(9) Despite the common belief that neutering dogs helps prevent prostate cancer, at least one study suggests that neutering provides no benefit.(10) There certainly is evidence of a slightly increased risk of mammary cancer in female dogs after one heat cycle, and for increased risk with each subsequent heat. While about 30 % of mammary cancers are malignant, as in humans, when caught and surgically removed early the prognosis is very good.(12) Luckily, canine athletes are handled frequently and generally receive prompt veterinary care.

Behavioral Considerations
The study that identified a higher incidence of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in spayed or neutered dogs also identified an increased incidence of sexual behaviors in males and females that were neutered early.(5) Further, the study that identified a higher incidence of hip dysplasia in dogs neutered or spayed before 5 1/2 months also showed that early age gonadectomy was associated with an increased incidence of noise phobias and undesirable sexual behaviors.(6) A recent report of the American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation reported significantly more behavioral problems in spayed and neutered bitches and dogs. The most commonly observed behavioral problem in spayed females was fearful behavior and the most common problem in males was aggression.(12)

Other Health Considerations
A number of studies have shown that there is an increase in the incidence of female urinary incontinence in dogs spayed early (13), although this finding has not been universal. Certainly there is evidence that ovarian hormones are critical for maintenance of genital tissue structure and contractility.(14, 15) Neutering also has been associated with an increased likelihood of urethral sphincter incontinence in males.(16) This problem is an inconvenience, and not usually life-threatening, but nonetheless one that requires the dog to be medicated for life. A health survey of several thousand Golden Retrievers showed that spayed or neutered dogs were more likely to develop hypothyroidism.(2) This study is consistent with the results of another study in which neutering and spaying was determined to be the most significant gender-associated risk factor for development of hypothyroidism.(17) Infectious diseases were more common in dogs that were spayed or neutered at 24 weeks or less as opposed to those undergoing gonadectomy at more than 24 weeks.(18) Finally, the AKC-CHF report demonstrated a higher incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines in neutered dogs as compared to intact.(12)

I have gathered these studies to show that our practice of routinely spaying or neutering every dog at or before the age of 6 months is not a black-and-white issue. Clearly more studies need to be done to evaluate the effects of prepubertal spaying and neutering, particularly in canine athletes.

Currently, I have significant concerns with spaying or neutering canine athletes before puberty. But of course, there is the pet overpopulation problem. How can we prevent the production of unwanted dogs while still leaving the gonads to produce the hormones that are so important to canine growth and development? One answer would be to perform vasectomies in males and tubal ligation in females, to be followed after maturity by ovariohysterectomy in females to prevent mammary cancer and pyometra. One possible disadvantage is that vasectomy does not prevent some unwanted behaviors associated with males such as marking and humping. On the other hand, females and neutered males frequently participate in these behaviors too. Really, training is the best solution for these issues. Another possible disadvantage is finding a veterinarian who is experienced in performing these procedures. Nonetheless, some do, and if the procedures were in greater demand, more veterinarians would learn them.

I believe it is important that we assess each situation individually. For canine athletes, I currently recommend that dogs and bitches be spayed or neutered after 14 months of age.

AB 1634 does not address the health considerations associated with spaying and neutering animals at an early age, especially affecting the long-term health of working breeds or any dog (purebred or mixed breed) that participates in working or athletic events.
• Orthopedic Considerations: abnormal bone growth due to lack of sex hormones; lower bone density due to lack of sex hormones; increase incidence of CCL rupture; increased incidence of hip
dysplasia

Maddie’s Fund President, Richard Avanzino, has confirmed today that if
CA AB
1634 passes into law, no community in the state will be able to benefit
from
Maddie’s Fund grants.

The California-based Maddie’s Fund, founded by People Soft guru David
Duffield and guided by Richard Avanzino, the visionary former president
of
the San Francisco SPCA, awards millions of dollars through multi-year
grants
to animal welfare coalitions to end killing of healthy and treatable
shelter
animals at no cost to taxpayers. Since its founding in 1999, the Fund
has
gifted over 54 million dollars to humane organizations in 22 states,
including an estimated 19 million dollars to California-based
charities,
educational institutions and animal shelters. Thousands of lives have
been
saved thanks to Maddie’s Fund grants.

Avanzino clearly addresses the Maddie’s Fund policy on funding
government
mandates in his statement, “Maddie’s Fund does NOT provide funding for
government programs, including state and local animal care and control
mandates. This policy applies to mandatory spay/neuter laws, as well as
to
other requirements imposed by federal, state, and local legislation.”
As a
government mandated spay/neuter law, CA AB1634 will effectively deny
California communities Maddie’s Fund grants.

California’s pets have benefited tremendously from Maddie’s Fund
community
grants.

* Over 7.9 million dollars in funds to the CVMA Feral Cat Altering
Program since 2001. This program subsidized the altering of over
100,000
cats who might otherwise have been destroyed.

* Almost 500 thousand dollars to a collaborative project in Lodi
which lowered euthanasia rates over 46% in two years.

* Supplied almost 1 million dollars to found the UC Davis Shelter
Medicine Program, the first such program in the nation for training
veterinarians in the complexities of animal shelter medicine.

These innovative programs are just a few examples of Maddie’s Fund
grants in
California. The loss of future funds to finance such wonderful and
effective programs will be a serious blow indeed.

For months, opponents of Assembly Bill 1634 have been crying out that
the
unintended consequences of passage of such an overreaching law could be
disastrous for animals in the state. The loss of Maddie’s Fund to
California will be catastrophic.

To learn more about Maddie’s Fund, their mission, and the programs they
have
funded, please visit their website athttp://www.maddiesfund.org.

WellDuh said,

in June 22nd, 2007 at 3:32 pm

ROFLMAO — No worries! This bill is a first test case for a similar law planned for human males to be enacted worldwide. Animals will once more help find the flaws in a proposed government controlled system. The idea for pets and humans being that the government will operate reproductive storage banks to protect and control the quality and numbers of each type allowed to populate the world.

But you guys need to point out that cost won’t be just a $1 billion per year. That is what it would cost for a half-enforced law like seat belts where neither pro nor con people are really that active or committed.

California legislators simply have not budgeted for collateral damage. To inform them CA pet fanatics need to identify their intention to sue, riot and kill. Talk about plans to burn homes of legislators and otherwise be “totally irrational” and suicidal. Admit that for many of you your pets are substitutes for human children and even lovers — in order to emphasize how far you will go in paramilitary resistance.

Wordstar said,

in June 20th, 2008 at 7:42 am

ML said:

“…none of them [animals] are capable of making informed decisions nor accepting consequences for their actions. Plain and simple domestic animals need humans, thus they are property.”

At best you’re being inconsistent! Babies and mentally handicapped people like Alzheimers patients are not “capable of making informed decisions nor accepting consequences for their actions.” Are babies and severely mentally handicapped people property?? Of course, not. They are not property and they have rights, just as the “needy” animals do.

i feel as if you are going to take away exotic animal license then you might as well be taking away a baby’s bottle and a child’s sugar for life. and if the government wants whats best for their children and everyone else then they should let us have exotic animals. expecally the ones who wanted an exotic animal since their childhood like me brenden clay mathis.

Leave A Reply

Advertisements

BloggerNews On The Air

We are pleased to announce our latest endeavor, Blogger News is now sponsoring some radio shows on Blog Talk Radio. You can check our full schedule, and listen to previous broadcasts here, and we hope that you will join us on the air in this new venture.